Three other points of criticism
Chris Pfeiler
criticism.
The posting´s maybe a little angry and exaggerated, so let me say again that
all this is just my own opinion and the way I see things from my personal point
of view. I´m maybe right or I´m maybe wrong, feel free to make your own opinion
and tell me what you think.
I. The show as anachronism
I tried to sum up all the possible points of criticism into a single line. It´s
not easy, as it usually needs a lot of rambling to write about the concepts of
decline, but finally the following came to my mind:
"The show traded in its almost unique ability to satirize society in a
brilliant way for the much more common ability to please the masses."
When the show started in late 1989 (let´s leave the 1987 - 1989 shorts aside)
it had something we can call enthusiasm. It wasn´t very much about money, it
wasn´t very much about merchandise and, most important of all, it wasn´t very
much about pleasing the masses. Of course, to a certain degree it was about
ratings and making money, but in those days it was still a little more than
that, it wasn´t so controlled by money and profit and ratings and merchandise
industry.
It was an experiment, the great TV experiment of the late 80s and early 90s, a
cartoon show with intelligent content, "living" reality and characters and
subversive messages. It was enthusiasm to go into prime time with such a poor
animation quality as in the very first S1 episodes, it was the idea to rely on
the greatness behind the animation, not on loud jokes and cool celebrities. The
show back in the early 90s was something very special, something...how should I
say...free-spirited.
And that´s the root of the problem. The show was an anachronism from the very
beginning on. The normal TV viewers (considered as mass) don´t want to see
stuff where they have to think, they want to see simpler stuff and straight
humor. It has always been like that, though it has become worse and worse in
the last years (that´s the zeitgeist, the overestimation of simple fun and
neglect of content in the media) so the Simpsons *had* to fall into line, it
had to become simpler and simpler and finally it had to evolve or degrade into
what it is now. That´s sad but true. To sum it up:
"It was a working anachronism - an element that refused to be a part of pop
culture and to give up the ability to satirize it - and that´s IMO what made it
so great, that´s what it has lost now."
It´s a complex matter of discussion whether the development of todays
media-behaviour comes from interior sources (the viewers themselves demand
simplified entertainment without deeper insights) or exterior sources (the TV
stations and networks only show simple entertainment to "raise" viewers of a
new generation who don´t appreciate content) but that´s another topic.
The show kept its true style (or at least parts of it) for a surprisingly long
time and it was always able to rescue the old "free spirit" into new stages of
development, so I´ve never seen an anachronism living for so long, but finally
it was over. The dream was over. The old anachronism of the 90s, the great TV
experiment, had become a hilarious freakin´ funny cartoon show, the ratings
went up, the masses were pleased. It´s IMO not really possible to define an
exact point in time when that happened (see point II) but there was maybe some
day when the free (but already weakened) spirit of the old days hit the ground
like a parasailer crashing through the roof of some celebrities house - if I
may use that suitable example.
Maybe it was unavoidable for the show to hit the ground, but there was always
hope that it would be strong enough to stay above the line, not to fall into
line. Some years ago, I thought that descent into conformity would start
already in season 5, but then came season 7 and the old spirit was strong and
truly evolved and renewed with fresh ideas and I had hope again. The
development from season 5 through season 6 to season 7 is IMO an example of how
a degradation process can turn itself into an evolution process.
But then came season 8, then season 9 and finally season 10 and one day I
realized, that it finally had happened. The dream was over. What we have now is
IMO the empty shell the old spirit had left when it was gone, a shell living
from its past and from the acceptance of low-level humor, a hip icon of pop
culture, finally no longer an anachronism and thus IMO mostly useless.
II. "Jumping the Shark" as a process
It´s IMO not really interesting to discuss whether the show had jumped the
shark or not, I´d say that discussion comes at least 4 or 5 years too late.
It´s also pretty useless to define JTS (jump the shark) as an exact point in
time, as single episode. I´d say JTS is a slow process that began many years
ago.
The show has lost almost every quality that made it special, has lost almost
everything that seperated it from mainstream cartoons and hackneyed sitcoms,
has lost almost everything that lifted it above the level of pop culture and
above the level of simplified TV entertainment etc etc. - yet people still
discuss whether it had jumped the shark, jumps the shark right now or will
maybe jump the shark in the future. Seems to me like some kind of social
phenomenon.
It would be much more interesting to discuss when, why, in what form, and how
often (sic) the show has jumped the shark. Some people (the most radical
oldschoolers) will maybe say the show jumped the shark when 8F24 "Kamp Krusty"
aired at the beginning of season 4 and they´ll point out the lack of depth and
intellectual insight that came into the show after season 3, others will maybe
name 9F22 "Cape Feare" when Sideshow Bob was degraded to a slapstick clown or
other season 5 episodes or maybe a season 8 episode and so on and so on.
I don´t want to say that I agree with any of these episodes as JTS points, I
just want to say that there are in fact many moments in the show´s history
which can be considered as JTS points, it depends on what you expect from the
show. Some JTS points may seem rather far-fetched, others are more valid and as
it is quite impossible to select just a single episode from an evolution (or
degradation) process it´s better to consider JTS as a development instead of a
single episode. This doesn´t mean that there are no single episodes which stand
out as problem episodes, but such episodes are either JTS points of their own
(so there are more than one) or stages in a JTS development.
We can consider such episodes as "point of no return", when for example a
certain quality was lost forever and the show defined itself in a new (usually
emptier) way than it used to be. These are the most valid points in the JTS
process, we could theoretically name episodes like "Cape Feare" or "When You
Dish Upon a Star" or "Beyond Blunderdome" to define such "stages".
To sum it up:
"The show jumped the shark in a slow process, a process of falling into line
and becoming more and more mass-conform through simplification of humor and
content."
III. The quality of writing
The writing used to be a source of inspiration and creativity, a "factory"
where society and life were satirized in a brilliant balance between
cartoon-oriented fun and real-life-oriented insight. Writing in classic years
meant creating a working reality with working characters in a working plot
which was funny *and* serious *and* thought-provoking at the same time. The
writers developed plots with deeper meaning, shown in a unified plotline on
large scale, shown for example with poems or parts of literature on smaller
scale within the plot (remember "The Road Not Taken" in 9F11) or plots that
worked on various levels of meaning and message, like 7G12 and many others in
the first years.
They had to think about the use of symbolism and true surrealism, the use of
reference material from literature (e.g. "The Raven" in THOH 1) or art (e.g.
the Rembrandt paintings as background in 7G13) or classic movies (e.g. 8F05
"Like Father Like Clown" which is a reference to "The Jazzsinger") and they had
to respect the characters and so on and so on. There was a time when plotlines
supported each other, exchanged elements, merged. A time when almost every
episode was written in the same and very high quality, when the show really had
the best writing of all shows on TV.
What about today? Standardized. Simplified. Mainstream. I guess there´s not
much need for creativity and inspiration (for both, writers and viewers) in an
empty shell.
To repeat the three lines that IMO sum up parts of the problem:
"The show traded in its almost unique ability to satirize society in a
brilliant way for the much more common ability to please the masses."
"It was a working anachronism - an element that refused to be a part of pop
culture and to give up the ability to satirize it - and that´s IMO what made it
so great, that´s what it has lost now."
"The show jumped the shark in a slow process, a process of falling into line
and becoming more and more mass-conform through simplification of humor and
content."
So far from me. Comments are welcome
Chris
R H Menzel
Chris Pfeiler <chris...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020531103240...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> .....tell me what you think.
>
> ... it had something we can call enthusiasm. It wasn´t very much about
money, it
> wasn´t very much about merchandise and, most important of all, it wasn´t
very
> much about pleasing the masses
You can't really believe that!? If you think that Groening and all the
people involved in "The Simpsons" weren't (from the get-go)sacrificing
virgins to the gods, then you know nothing about artists, TV executives,
advertizers, etc.
> ....it wasn´t so controlled by money and profit and ratings and
merchandise
> industry.
That's because merchandise didn't come out until 1990!
> It was an experiment, the great TV experiment of the late 80s and early
90s
All new programs are "experiments". Lots of so-called good programming goes
the way of the dinosaur because of poor ratings. "The Simpsons" survived
because of good ratings.
> "It was a working anachronism - an element that refused to be a part of
pop
> culture and to give up the ability to satirize it - and that´s IMO what
made it
> so great, that´s what it has lost now."
The fact that it was "Tracy Ullman" made it part of pop culture from the
very beginning.
>
> It´s a complex matter of discussion whether the development of todays
> media-behaviour comes from interior sources (the viewers themselves demand
> simplified entertainment without deeper insights) or exterior sources (the
TV
> stations and networks only show simple entertainment to "raise" viewers of
a
> new generation who don´t appreciate content) but that´s another topic.
This has been said of television for generations.
> The dream was over.
The dream is over? This is as sad as trekkie-talk. Long before "The
Simpsons" Groening made fun of everything, including himself, all pompous,
self-important, delusional people and anyone else who takes things too
seriously.
> IMO the empty shell the old spirit had left when it was gone, a shell
living
> from its past and from the acceptance of low-level humor, a hip icon of
pop
> culture, finally no longer an anachronism and thus IMO mostly useless.
Gee, what will you watch now to feel part of the cool people?
> true surrealism
What do you think true surrealism is? The only surreal episode was the one
with Homer in the 3rd dimension.
You complain about television being mainstream. Why do all you cool,
intellectual people come down from your pedestals to watch television in the
first place? By definition television is for the "great unwashed". And, by
your own admissions your are too far above the rest of us for such a banal
form of entertainment.
Do you post in other news groups and complain about other shows. Here's a
tip! If you don't like something, don't participate in it. And most of you
seem to have disliked "The Simpsons" for many years!
Move on! Stop wasting time!
Groening doesn't care about you. Never had.
Find a new false god!
-Bob
That Guy
"Chris Pfeiler" <chris...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020531103240...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Martin Schlömer
nitpicking in moot places and took metaphors literally, i like your last
paragraph:
R H Menzel wrote:
> You complain about television being mainstream. Why do all you cool,
> intellectual people come down from your pedestals to watch television in the
> first place? By definition television is for the "great unwashed". And, by
> your own admissions your are too far above the rest of us for such a banal
> form of entertainment.
>
> Do you post in other news groups and complain about other shows. Here's a
> tip! If you don't like something, don't participate in it. And most of you
> seem to have disliked "The Simpsons" for many years!
>
> Move on! Stop wasting time!
>
> Groening doesn't care about you. Never had.
>
> Find a new false god!
>
> -Bob
The experiment is over. The Simpsons are not anymore what they started
as. And i finally realize i've been putting to much heart into something
i can't change anyway.
I'll try to ease my pain with Futurama while i still can.
After that i'll go and look for a new false god.
Know any good ones?
Martin.
R H Menzel
Okay, genius! What was Chris' point? Astound us all!
-Bob
Martin Schlömer <gnub...@web.de> wrote in message
news:3CF7E38F...@web.de...
Jake Lennington
> You can't really believe that!? If you think that Groening and all the
> people involved in "The Simpsons" weren't (from the get-go)sacrificing
> virgins to the gods, then you know nothing about artists, TV executives,
> advertizers, etc.
If you think about it, OFF was a throwaway that became famous. MG
stated he created the original scribblings based of memebers of his
family in 15 minutes so he could give Fox something else other than
his Life in Hell strips. From the get go, OFF was something that if
it flopped would've been a 'so what?'. If it failed, Life in Hell
wouldn't have been tarnished and it everyone could've called it a
day...
This really wasn't a 'sacrifice', it was more of a crapshoot which
became immensely popular.
>
> > ....it wasn´t so controlled by money and profit and ratings and
> merchandise
> > industry.
>
> That's because merchandise didn't come out until 1990!
>
Which because the show was a fad for the first two years, NOT because
there was any serious planning for any merchandise in 1988.
> > It was an experiment, the great TV experiment of the late 80s and early
> 90s
>
> All new programs are "experiments". Lots of so-called good programming goes
> the way of the dinosaur because of poor ratings. "The Simpsons" survived
> because of good ratings.
Had the show premiered on ABC, NBC, or CBS, it wouldn't have lasted
past season 2.
>
> > "It was a working anachronism - an element that refused to be a part of
> pop
> > culture and to give up the ability to satirize it - and that´s IMO what
> made it
> > so great, that´s what it has lost now."
>
> The fact that it was "Tracy Ullman" made it part of pop culture from the
> very beginning.
>
I agree with you on how the the show isn't any more above pop culture,
but OFF changed the attitudes on television much like how the
alternative/grunge changed the sound in music in the early 90's from
that damn 80's pop sound. OFF gave the non reality a bit more
reality. The "reality mixed with 'non-reality'", when mixed
correctly, is very engrossing, enriching television--something which
comes along very rarely. Some people miss this 'correct' mix and say
stuff like:
> > The dream was over.
>
> The dream is over? This is as sad as trekkie-talk. Long before "The
> Simpsons" Groening made fun of everything, including himself, all pompous,
> self-important, delusional people and anyone else who takes things too
> seriously.
I think the show would rather have fans 'who take things too
seriously' than have no fans at all.
> > IMO the empty shell the old spirit had left when it was gone, a shell
> living
> > from its past and from the acceptance of low-level humor, a hip icon of
> pop
> > culture, finally no longer an anachronism and thus IMO mostly useless.
>
> Gee, what will you watch now to feel part of the cool people?
>
I'll agree that "useless" is a smelly word, I do concur that show has
changed, but it no longer is a 'serious' comedy with empathy (although
this season has been better, IMO).
> > true surrealism
>
> What do you think true surrealism is? The only surreal episode was the one
> with Homer in the 3rd dimension.
I don't mind surrealism as long as it is funny, but I cannot stand it
when the show continues to make fun of itself. It's like I want to
yell at the screen: "Enough with the self-reffs, I know you're not
real!".
> You complain about television being mainstream. Why do all you cool,
> intellectual people come down from your pedestals to watch television in the
> first place? By definition television is for the "great unwashed". And, by
> your own admissions your are too far above the rest of us for such a banal
> form of entertainment.
Well, the Simpsosn has attracted a lot of attention as being the 'best
written show on TV'. Hell, some collegs even offer courses using the
Simpsons as the hook to get students to learn about modern
pop-culture. (You don't see the University of Michigan offering
classes on "Everybody loves Raymond"!)
> Do you post in other news groups and complain about other shows. Here's a
> tip! If you don't like something, don't participate in it. And most of you
> seem to have disliked "The Simpsons" for many years!
If he didn't care, he wouldn't have written what he wrote. It's like
having bad breath--unless you tell someone, their breath is going to
keep on stinking. Heck, Al Jean even admitted he agreed with "some"
of the senitments expressed on the net, most of which was about
Homer's characterization over the past few years.
> Groening doesn't care about you. Never had.
>
> Find a new false god!
Being a fan of the Simpsons is no more of a 'hobby' than building
model cars, or collecting baseball cards. The show is no more of a
'false god' than a model of a Vector or the next rookie of the year.
Jake
Chris Pfeiler
>You can't really believe that!? If you think that Groening and all the
>people involved in "The Simpsons" weren't (from the get-go)sacrificing
>virgins to the gods, then you know nothing about artists, TV executives,
>advertizers, etc.
To reply just in short:
What I meant to say is: today they would do almost anything to keep the show
running, not because of enthusiasm but because of money and merchandise and
profit. It´s much more controlled by ratings and by a huge industry now and
that´s one reason why the show stopped being so free and free-spirited..
Today, they try to produce as many episodes as possible, cram as many
slapstickish jokes and silly and obvious references and obvious in-your-face
pseudo-satire into the episodes. They want to make the show last, but not for
the show itself and the old idea but for money.
Back in the early years, it was enthusiasm and it was an experiment. Read some
of the old interviews and articles from 1990 to see that. It wasn´t just simply
"a new show" on TV (that is rarely experimental as most shows are just copies
of former ideas) but a new concept of show and entertainment and deep satire,
of a cartoon show that appealed to adults as well (like I said) and that´s made
it much much more experimental.
Back in the old days, they made the show to create a very special thing (and
making a few bucks while you´re at it ;-)) but today they make the show because
the FOX executives and the industry demands it. The industry demands a show
with many viewers, a tame show, a mass compatible show, a show that sells and -
at least for OFF - that´s sad.
The ratings are way up now. Why? Because the show has become so very good? Or
because they made it more conform to the mass market of mainstream TV industry?
>The fact that it was "Tracy Ullman" made it part of pop culture from the
>very beginning.
Have you read my post about the difference between "Homerpalooza" and "New
Kids"? There´s a way to be famous but nevertheless to keep the ability to
satirize society and pop culture, to be good enough to stay above the line.
There´s a huge (a very huge) difference between satirizing pop culture in a
deeper way and adapting almost 100% to pop culture to please N´Sync fans.
>What do you think true surrealism is? The only surreal episode was the one
>with Homer in the 3rd dimension.
I guess you haven´t read my definition of surrealism on the show. What do you
think makes Homer in the 3rd dimension the only truly surreal episode ? Why is
"Mysterious Voyage" with Homer´s "Altered States" chili trip no real surrealism
to you? Why is great "Bart Sells His Soul" with its abstraction of the soul
concept no surrealism to you? Don´t you see the difference between
cartoonishness and true meaningful surrealism?
I guess you haven´t read any serious book about the show, the word "surrealism"
is used very often there to explain deeper concepts.
But why should you read a serious book? All the people who see anything more
than a funny and wacky cartoon in the show are just sad and a little crazy,
aren´t they? Seems very closed-minded to me.
>Move on! Stop wasting time!
>
>Groening doesn't care about you. Never had.
>
>Find a new false god!
So why do you think you can speak for Matt? Matt would say that. Matt would say
this. Matt would say "You nitpickers stink". Matt doesn´t care about you. You
complain about serious and self-important people, yet you try to talk for Matt
Groening himself and to tell people what they should do and that they should
move on, just because they have a different and maybe more complex opinion than
you.
Matt wanted to make satire - true satire - about life and society, not a simple
and superficial cartoon show, so why do you think he would laugh about people
who take the show more serious than others and who try to interpret satirical
messages? Why were all those deep and hidden elements there in the first place?
Matt wrote in the OFF guide that "the show rewards you for paying attention".
Sounds that as if he doesn´t care for serious people?
Well, to come to an end. All you wrote in this thread has IMO one message
"Guys, it´s just a simple cartoon show, so let´s don´t care."
And that´s IMO - if I may use a quote from Josh Fredman, who said it best - a
slap in the face to human ingenuity. "It´s is neither unsavory nor unreasonable
to commend our arts forms, including animation, for their richness of content."
You may find that all sad and crazy and like trekkie talk, but that´s your
opinion. It´s fine to me, no problem, but you should accept other opinions and
deeper insights as well.
Chris
bagpuss
> as. And i finally realize i've been putting to much heart into something
> i can't change anyway.
> I'll try to ease my pain with Futurama while i still can.
> After that i'll go and look for a new false god.
> Know any good ones?
>
They say this Jesus dude has got some good shit going on.
R H Menzel
Sorry you couldn't handle the criticism you asked for. I guess you only
wanted opinions that backed up your pseudo-intellectualism.
-Bob
Chris Pfeiler <chris...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020601051325...@mb-mm.aol.com...
Chris Pfeiler
>Oh, .....and you are the one with deep insights!?
I didn愒 say that. I try to have some insights and I appreciate people who try
to see more in the show than others.
>Sorry you couldn't handle the criticism you asked for. I guess you only
>wanted opinions that backed up your pseudo-intellectualism.
Not at all. I惴 interested in every opinion, that愀 why I asked (that愀 why I
ask in most of my posts) and I was interested in your opinion as well. I just
pointed out that I don愒 agree with some of the things you said, but I respect
your opinion as much as any other opinion.
Chris
R H Menzel
news:748fff0e.02053...@posting.google.com...
Hey, a whole-thought out response! Just three replies are needed. One) by
"sacrificing virgins" I meant (in an albeit flippant way) Groening is just a
guy who wants to make money. His art isn't ART. It's just art. If it was
just about making art, he'd sit in his house and create. (BTW, I am the
executive director of an arts group and have talked to hundreds of artists.
99% of artists love money more than creating art.)
Point two) Surrealism is a specific term. It has been corrupted to include
anything out of the ordinary. In the true sense of the word ,the movie
"Steppenwolf" is surreal, whereas "A Clockwork Orange" and "The Matrix" are
not.
Point three) Agreed! Most people do take "The Simpsons" as a hobby. I
collect the figures and environments... for fun. But a few people (and it
seems most of the posters in this ng) take it way too seriously, and elevate
it to the stature of "false godhood".
-Bob
Hobbes gy
show
running, not because of enthusiasm but because of money and merchandise and
that愀 one reason why the show stopped being so free and free-spirited..
slapstickish jokes and silly and obvious references and obvious in-your-face
pseudo-satire into the episodes. They want to make the show last, but not for
the show itself and the old idea but for money.<<<<<
You seem to be making some pretty audacious statements about the intensions and
motivations of the shows producers. Do you have any facts, articles or first
hand knowledge to back these claims up?.
What if the changes in the show's tone si simply a result of the producers,
writer's preferences for humor? . after all a number of the people that drove
to the show to greatness no longer work on it. (and in the case of Conan
O'Brien and Brad Bird.. ...have gone on to bigger and better things)
and How is the show less free spirited now then it was in the early seasons?..
is is that the show is suddenly less of a free spirit?. or is it that the show
is so much of a free spirit that it has since moved along a new unbeaten path
that simply no longer conforms to your particular tastes
Groening has stated in a recent interview that he and the staff of the show
want to keep surprising themselves and the viewers. Well SURPRISE!!!!.
I'm playing a bit of Devil's advocate here (and not the pinball version). I
detest the new Simpsons and long for the days when it WAS "the best written
show on TV" and had that wonderfully layered humor,
But the above quoted statements sound like the same tired rants we hear about
every piece of entertainment that no longer appeals to someone
The only people that know for sure why the show has changed are the ones
responsible for the changes.. and they aren't talking
Chris Pfeiler
>You seem to be making some pretty audacious statements about the intensions
>and
>motivations of the shows producers. Do you have any facts, articles or first
>hand knowledge to back these claims up?.
Not really, they won´t write that in articles. It´s a personal impression (and
not only mine) and a good explanation for why the show has become what it is
but is still running. There are a few and IMO well-written articles about the
show´s decline, but most of todays articles simply praise the show. However,
look into these articles and you´ll notice that they praise the show but mostly
use episodes from seasons 1 to 8 to back up all their praise. So why is that?
I can at least back up my claims with what the show has become, a show that
backs away from serious social and satirical comments and from every truly
radical content for many years now, a show that mostly gave up relying on the
viewers intelligence and instead tells them what to think and so on and so on.
However, it still airs and is promoted and merchandised and that´s what gives
me my own impression about the motivations and intentions of the shows
producers (without facts).
>and How is the show less free spirited now then it was in the early
>seasons?..
>is is that the show is suddenly less of a free spirit?. or is it that the
>show
>is so much of a free spirit that it has since moved along a new unbeaten path
>that simply no longer conforms to your particular tastes
I wonder how a show that adapts more and more to pop culture and to the normal
rules of everyday-cartoon-writing can be free-spirited any longer. It´s of
course a problem of being no longer conform to particular tastes (and being
conform to much more other tastes) but that brings us back to the old problem
of mass-market orientation to save the ratings. In addition, it´s not only my
particular taste. Why are there people (and no small number) who - from all 13
seasons - only consider the first 3 seasons as true OFF seasons?
>Groening has stated in a recent interview that he and the staff of the show
>want to keep surprising themselves and the viewers. Well SURPRISE!!!!.
To me, there isn´t much surprise in new episodes. Homer will do this, Homer
will do that, Homer will have some wacky new job, Homer will get in trouble,
Lisa will get in trouble (but don´t tell the viewers that we air a Lisa
episode, lousy boring nerd´s bad for the ratings, just show them some Bart show
promotion) and so on.
If the surprise is, that a Simpsons episode feels now like a WB cartoon, then
it´s a pretty bad surprise. A truly imaginative episode with good ideas, with a
working plotline, an episode that stirs emotions beside humor - that would be a
surprise. Maybe the only S13 episode close to surprise was "Little Girl in the
Big Ten".
>But the above quoted statements sound like the same tired rants we hear about
>every piece of entertainment that no longer appeals to someone
What else should I say? The rants are always the same old ones.
>The only people that know for sure why the show has changed are the ones
>responsible for the changes.. and they aren't talking
And that´s why I can´t back up my claims with facts, just with impression.
Chris
Jake Lennington
> Hobbesgy wrote:
>
> >You seem to be making some pretty audacious statements about the intensions
> >and
> >motivations of the shows producers. Do you have any facts, articles or first
> >hand knowledge to back these claims up?.
>
> Not really, they won´t write that in articles. It´s a personal impression (and
> not only mine) and a good explanation for why the show has become what it is
> but is still running.
One of the ex-animators of the show stated on another message board
that the writers (aka bosses) decided to change the overall tone of
the show around 1997-98. Why? Because they were worried the show's
long-term fans were going to start abandoning the series after being
loyal viewers since the Ullman shorts. Thusly, they made the show
more 'slapstick' and sight-gagged based to lure in the kids who were
outgrowing Pokemon to replace the potential "lost viewer". Notice how
("jerkass") Homer and his buffoonery began around around that period,
even before Scully took over?
From a marketing sense, this was pure genius--have a show with a solid
reputation with adults and then market it towards kids. As with
mostly everyting these days, the Simpsons 'changed' so it could remain
profitable. (Not that it wouldn't have became unprofitable in its
older guise, IMO!)
Jake
Martin Schlömer
> Duh! Me so dumb. Me not understand 'cause I'm in a "moot place".
>
> Okay, genius! What was Chris' point? Astound us all!
>
> -Bob
Of course, i hadn't really read what Chris wrote, when i posted the
first reply.
I was just plain drunk and had to yell at someone. Sorry.
It took me a while, but here's what i think _Chris_ said :)
(i appologize in advance, since this is going to be a quoting mess)
I. the satire is gone
The show starts out as an experiment. The main concept seemed to have
been: do something new and refreshing. Satirizing pop culture quickly
became one of the most central parts of the show. A part, i guess, we
all loved about it.
Something like that had not been seen in a cartoon. Chris calls it an
anachronism.
But after x seasons the satire is mostly gone and appears to have been
substituted with throwaway gags and celebrity guest appearances.
II. a slow process
So when did the change take place?
There wasn't a clean break. Instead The Simpsons made the move step by
step (or rather show by show and season by season).
III. quality of writing
The writing had a very high level in the beginning, but became
"Standardized. Simplified. Mainstream." (Quote Chris)
Well to sum it up, Chris basically is looking at the same process from
there more or less different angles.
Now, Bob, i didn't find anything in your reply about the lack of satire
or the development of the show in general. That's why i summed it up,
the way i did.
On the other hand, was the bottom line of your reply to be read as "it's
just fucking entertainment"?
Then it certainly would have been completely on topic ;)
Instead Bob wrote:
> Chris Pfeiler <chris...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020531103240...@mb-bh.aol.com...
> > .....tell me what you think.
> >
> > ... it had something we can call enthusiasm. It wasn´t very much
about money, it
> > wasn´t very much about merchandise and, most important of all, it
wasn´t very
> > much about pleasing the masses
>
>
> You can't really believe that!? If you think that Groening and all the
> people involved in "The Simpsons" weren't (from the get-go)sacrificing
> virgins to the gods, then you know nothing about artists, TV executives,
> advertizers, etc.
Just speak for yourself ;)
But of course, you are right, they were in it for the money.
_But_ they had the chance of a lifetime to build up something with no
rules attached. And that's why i think Chris is right in what he says.
The creative people working on the Simpsons were excited about what they
were doing. And that shows!
Martin.
R H Menzel
> Just speak for yourself ;)
I am! Sorry you can't handle my observations.
> But of course, you are right, they were in it for the money.
SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT?
> _But_ they had the chance of a lifetime to build up something with no
> rules attached.
You think that there were no rules attached? If there were no rules,
Groening would've done "Life in Hell". God, you're naive!
> And that's why i think Chris is right in what he says.
> The creative people working on the Simpsons were excited about what they
> were doing. And that shows!
What's your definition of "creative people". All the people (good or bad)
working on "The Simpsons" are creative. They are all working for a salary.
I've worked with artists. They'd all sell out in a heartbeat.
- Bob
Martin Schlömer
>>_But_ they had the chance of a lifetime to build up something with no
>>rules attached.
>
>
> You think that there were no rules attached? If there were no rules,
> Groening would've done "Life in Hell". God, you're naive!
And you don't pay attention to interviews: Matt Groening stated more
than once, that the only reason, he picked or rather created the
Simpsons for the TV show, was that he was afraid, it might be a failure
and that would hurt his comic strip. So instead he created something
that wasn't directly related to his strip.
And as for creative freedom: When you listen to the audio commentary on
the Simpsons Season I DVDs i think you'll understand what i mean by "no
rules attached". The creative people (defined as "directors, writers and
story boarders") had a lot of freedom for experiments.
It went as far as the second episode had been produced and during a
screening, they suddenly realized that a lot of things, they had done
_didn't_ work. And that was the moment the first rules manifested
themselves, the first "let's not do that again". But up to then and even
after that, they had time to try thing that had never been done for tv
animation before.
And by the way, i prefer the term "idealistic". :)
>>And that's why i think Chris is right in what he says.
>>The creative people working on the Simpsons were excited about what they
>>were doing. And that shows!
>
>
> What's your definition of "creative people". All the people (good or bad)
> working on "The Simpsons" are creative. They are all working for a salary.
>
> I've worked with artists. They'd all sell out in a heartbeat.
Doesn't mean they can't put their hearts into something at the same time...
Martin.
R H Menzel
> > I've worked with artists. They'd all sell out in a heartbeat.
>
> Doesn't mean they can't put their hearts into something at the same
time...
>
to bullshit interviews and believe in fairy tales. That's your prerogative.
-Bob
Chris Pfeiler
>They don't!!! You can believe that or not. You can also continue to listen
>to bullshit interviews and believe in fairy tales. That's your prerogative.
Actually, I didn´t want to say anything else in this thread, there´s IMO too
little substance. But here we go.
First, you said that Matt Groening doesn´t care about "self-important" people,
then you spoke for Matt Groening, maybe trying to say what he said in
interviews (I guess you don´t know Matt personally) or what you think he should
have said. Everything that backs up your opinion is a good thing, eh?
Now if someone mentions other interviews where people say different things
(about enthusiasm and idealism and imagination and the power of human
creativity) and things which are not conform to your point of view (which you
seem to consider as the only valid point of view) they become simple "bullshit
interviews" or maybe "bullshit comments" or "bullshit posts" and so on.
You think you can attack people by claiming that they consider Matt Groening as
their false god, but that is a big mistake. The show was that great not because
of only Matt but because of all the people who were involved in the very first
years, a lot of truly intelligent complexity and greatness of season 2 comes
IMO from James Brooks and not from Matt Groening, the greatest elements of
character drama and character development come IMO from Jon Vitti and some
other writers, thus your argument is pointless (every aggressive argument is
IMO pointless)
Matt was important for the show (there is a noticeable decline of quality when
he left the show after season 8 to make Futurama) but he wasn´t the only source
of greatness. On the other hand, if you have a look on "Futurama" you´ll notice
the very sad difference between brilliant F3K masterpieces like "Luck of The
Fryish", "Parasites Lost" and "Godfellas" and the dull and sitcomish emptyness
of standardized OFF episodes in season 13. Matt was important and he still is
important (and I think he knows that the Simpsons are in the dumpster now. I
just think he knows but I don´t claim to talk for Matt) but it´s not only him.
I guess it´s pretty useless to say more, all your comments show me that you
won´t accept anything else than your own "truth" (<= now that´s sad like
X-Files talk, isn´t it ;-)) and your point of view is IMO very closed-minded
and a mirror of a cold and unimaginative world.
The true depth of cartoons (especially classic OFF) and the "reality" of
cartoon characters is a symbol for the immense power of creativity and for the
power of the human mind. If you think every open-minded and idealistic opinion
is just sad and "bullshit" then it´s your prerogative.
At least I´m glad that I know a lot of people who think different (you know,
all the cool people and "pseudo-intellectuals" who prefer to see more in a
cartoon show than others.)
Chris
R H Menzel
your faults you project on others? Try to re-read what I wrote (take your
time), and try to do so with an open mind.
I know that's hard for teenagers!
-Bob
Jason Saslow
Wait, he doesn't agree with your point of view so therefore he could
only be a teenager?
--
Please note: You can contact me directly by sending e-mail to
dev-...@saslow.com, but you must put "[alt-tv-simpsons]" in
the subject line or it will automatically be deleted.
R H Menzel
feel the need to defend him.
BTW, disagreeing with me is not at issue. Recognizing other facts, opinions
and observations is. If you can't see that, ..oh, well!
-Bob
Jason Saslow <jsa...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:3D00F0F3...@deadspam.com...
Jason Saslow
>
> It's the way he argues that makes me believe that. And the fact that others
> feel the need to defend him.
>
> BTW, disagreeing with me is not at issue. Recognizing other facts, opinions
> and observations is. If you can't see that, ..oh, well!
Fair enough.
Jake Lennington
> Matt was important for the show (there is a noticeable decline of quality when
> he left the show after season 8 to make Futurama) but he wasn´t the only source
> of greatness. On the other hand, if you have a look on "Futurama" you´ll notice
> the very sad difference between brilliant F3K masterpieces like "Luck of The
> Fryish", "Parasites Lost" and "Godfellas" and the dull and sitcomish emptyness
> of standardized OFF episodes in season 13. Matt was important and he still is
> important (and I think he knows that the Simpsons are in the dumpster now. I
> just think he knows but I don´t claim to talk for Matt) but it´s not only him.
Okay, here's some words about Futurama from Matt Groening:
"As I get older, I'm becoming more interested in feelings [sic] and
how people relate to eachother. Futurama contains so much fantasy and
surrealism, it is of little personal intrest to me." -- From the
May/June issue of AARP (or another 'old people' magazine) The article
even goes on to state that Matt Groening hasn't been involved with the
day to day production process of Futurama since mid-2000, too.
> I guess it´s pretty useless to say more, all your comments show me that you
> won´t accept anything else than your own "truth" (<= now that´s sad like
> X-Files talk, isn´t it ;-)) and your point of view is IMO very closed-minded
> and a mirror of a cold and unimaginative world.
Chris, the problem between you and R.H. is simply you have a very
idealistic view of the show--or what the show SHOULD be. R.H. seems
to be a very down-to earth person who sees the Simpsons as a big-money
making venture which doesn't really have much hidden meaning. The
problem is you are both right and wrong. Having ideas, ideals and
experimenting are how TV shows come into this world--it's the making a
profit that keeps them going.
Jake
www.maggieanderic.com
Chris Pfeiler
Actually, I´m 25. Maybe a little too old to count as a teenager.
Maybe I misunderstood some of the things you said, but I still have the
impression that your reaction to people with a more idealistic opinion is a
little too aggressive. Your opinion (like any opinion) is subjective but you
call other people naive, relying on "bullshit" interviews, considering Matt
Groening as a false god and the show as some substitute religion etc etc and I
think that´s a little too generalized.
It´s like Jake said - I have a pretty idealistic opinion and you have a
down-to-earth opinion (good way to sum it up in a single line.) He also said we
are both right and wrong in a certain way and I can live with that.
I don´t know whether you have read some of my classic episode reviews I posted
here (for example http://members.aol.com/Chris84792/bust.htm and many others on
my website) but it´s very useful to have a more idealistic and imaginative
opinion about the show to write such stuff.
It would be very little fun if I would think "It´s only about money-making, it
has no meaning" all the time while writing such reviews and analysis, so a more
"naive" and imaginative opinion can be productive in a certain way. I hope you
will agree here.
Maybe contrary to some of the things I say, I consider the show as nothing but
a hobby. It´s no false god, no substitute religion. It´s just a hobby but a
hobby I take sometimes very serious (too serious?) and so do many other people
and I think you shouldn´t call them naive and probably teenagers who know
nothing about real life and reality. I think I have enough experience in life
to know things, but it doesn´t stop me from being idealistic and see more in a
cartoon show than others (I even know some artists who write or do art just for
creative reasons.)
BTW, I didn´t ask Martin to defend me (he was drunk ;-)) and I think some of
his arguments (like the one about "no rules") were incorrect or at least
written in a misunderstandable way.
To come to an end - we have different opinions and see things in a very
different way. I guess it´s much more easy to enjoy recent OFF episodes and
seasons with such a down-to-earth opinion but it can be pretty painful if you
have a more idealistic opinion about the show.
Chris
R H Menzel
> R H Menzel wrote:
>
> >Hey, Chris! Do you realize how much you contradict yourself, and how much
of
> >your faults you project on others? Try to re-read what I wrote (take your
> >time), and try to do so with an open mind.
> >
> >I know that's hard for teenagers!
>
> Actually, I´m 25. Maybe a little too old to count as a teenager.
OOPS!
> Maybe I misunderstood some of the things you said, but I still have the
> impression that your reaction to people with a more idealistic opinion is
a
> little too aggressive.
You're not the first to say that!
Your opinion (like any opinion) is subjective but you
> call other people naive, relying on "bullshit" interviews,
Interviews are bullshit because the interviewee is trying to press a point,
play the game. I don't trust what people say. I believe in what they do, and
did!
> considering Matt Groening as a false god and the show as some substitute
religion etc etc and I think that´s a little too generalized.
Yes it is. Generally, the posters argue like scholars interpreting the
Torah. In order words...religiously!
> It´s like Jake said - I have a pretty idealistic opinion and you have a
> down-to-earth opinion (good way to sum it up in a single line.)
Yes...yes it is!
> He also said we are both right and wrong in a certain way and I can live
with that.
We really don't have a choice, do we? :o)
> I don´t know whether you have read some of my classic episode reviews I
posted
> here (for example http://members.aol.com/Chris84792/bust.htm and many
others on
> my website) but it´s very useful to have a more idealistic and imaginative
> opinion about the show to write such stuff.
> It would be very little fun if I would think "It´s only about
money-making, it
> has no meaning" all the time while writing such reviews and analysis, so a
more
> "naive" and imaginative opinion can be productive in a certain way. I hope
you
> will agree here.
I agree that it would be fun, but productive?
What do you wish to produce?
Pardon me if I sound confrontational. I am! It's what makes me good at my
job.
>
> Maybe contrary to some of the things I say, I consider the show as nothing
but
> a hobby. It´s no false god, no substitute religion.
As I've stated, many others do treat it as their "religion" whether they
want to admit to it or not.
It´s just a hobby but a
> hobby I take sometimes very serious (too serious?)
Serious...ly!
and so do many other people
> and I think you shouldn´t call them naive and probably teenagers who know
> nothing about real life and reality.
If people reject opposing opinions outright, and by into anything that
supports their own opinions, then they are naive and behave as teenagers.
> I think I have enough experience in life
> to know things, but it doesn´t stop me from being idealistic and see more
in a
> cartoon show than others (I even know some artists who write or do art
just for
> creative reasons.)
I'd really like to meet one. I'd also like to see Bigfoot!
> BTW, I didn´t ask Martin to defend me
I didn't think so.
(he was drunk ;-)) and I think some of
> his arguments (like the one about "no rules") were incorrect or at least
> written in a misunderstandable way
Seemed clear to me!
> To come to an end - we have different opinions and see things in a very
> different way.
This is true. I have a completely different view of "Brave New World". (Very
pragmatic, and unidealistic....to say the least!)
> I guess it´s much more easy to enjoy recent OFF episodes and
> seasons with such a down-to-earth opinion but it can be pretty painful if
you
> have a more idealistic opinion about the show.
If you stop having preconceived notions about things, you'll be able to see
the world for what it truly is.
-Bob
Anna
> I wonder how a show that adapts more and more to pop culture and to the normal
> rules of everyday-cartoon-writing can be free-spirited any longer. It´s of
> course a problem of being no longer conform to particular tastes (and being
> conform to much more other tastes) but that brings us back to the old problem
> of mass-market orientation to save the ratings. In addition, it´s not only my
> particular taste. Why are there people (and no small number) who - from all 13
> seasons - only consider the first 3 seasons as true OFF seasons?
That's easy. It's because, when a cult hit or slow starter goes
mainstream, the people who were there first get all persnickity and
start insisting that the only "good" episodes were the old ones - the
ones the n00bs haven't seen. Then they spend the next ten years (or
whatever) moaning about how much their once-favorite show sucks.
Of course, this is all just my impression, but I've participated in
these feelings from both the "Go 'way, I never wanted my secret out"
and the "Move over, Grandpa" sides and this is what I've observed. I
don't find this debate to be very productive, since the old-schoolers
aren't going to change their minds, and the n00bs are only going to
support the show more zealously, and possibly unfairly. Is that what
you want? People supporting the newer, sucky Simpsons because their
pride has been challenged?
My advice to the old-schoolers is: if you really can't stand the show,
for God's sake stop watching it! Take a break from it. Watch something
else for a while, come back in a season and see if maybe you weren't a
little hasty, or if you're even still interested. When X-Files got
boring for me, I started watching Twin Peaks, which spared me the
trauma of XF's *real* downward slide. My recommendations for Simpsons
fans are Duckman, The Tick, The Critic, and maybe South Park.
> If the surprise is, that a Simpsons episode feels now like a WB cartoon, then
> it´s a pretty bad surprise. A truly imaginative episode with good ideas, with a
> working plotline, an episode that stirs emotions beside humor - that would be a
> surprise. Maybe the only S13 episode close to surprise was "Little Girl in the
> Big Ten".
What about "Jaws Wired Shut" or "She of Little Faith" or "Half Decent
Proposal?" I actually liked a fair number of eps from this season. It
was, IMO, a big improvement on season 12, which has got to be the
worst to date: tons of unfunny guest appearances, tons of random
stupidity, lack of respect for the characters and character
development - did I miss anything? That season 13 was better than both
11 and 12 should be giving everyone hope.
> What else should I say? The rants are always the same old ones.
Yes. Yes, they are. Why bother reiterating them and alienating the new
fans?
--Anna
Chris Pfeiler
>My advice to the old-schoolers is: if you really can't stand the show,
>for God's sake stop watching it!
I never said that I can´t stand the show any longer, I just said that it´s no
longer what it used to be, namely excellent and complex character-related
satire. It lost that ability when it "hit the ground" (like I said) and fell
into the line of mainstream writing.
>What about "Jaws Wired Shut" or "She of Little Faith" or "Half Decent
>Proposal?" I actually liked a fair number of eps from this season. It
>was, IMO, a big improvement on season 12,
I agree, it was an improvement to the Scully years. Maybe "Little Girl" wasn´t
the only surprise, but it was at least the biggest surprise while too many S13
episodes prefered to fall into line and copied ideas from S11/S12. I said some
things about S13 in my reply to Abman´s reviews, even some friendly things.
Chris
Jake Lennington
> That's easy. It's because, when a cult hit or slow starter goes
> mainstream, the people who were there first get all persnickity and
> start insisting that the only "good" episodes were the old ones - the
> ones the n00bs haven't seen. Then they spend the next ten years (or
> whatever) moaning about how much their once-favorite show sucks.
The Simpsons has always been mainstream. The show was made to appeal
a broad range of people so that it could be profitable. However, the
only difference between the older episodes and the newer episodes, is
the newer (mostly Mike Scully produced, Al Jean has been doing the
show at near season 1-7 quality, IMO) episodes lack empathy for the
characters--meaning the writers have made the characters far less
likeable than before. They take the characters for granted, so they
write for the show like: "Hey, everyone knows who Marge is, so we
don't need to support her character in this plot!".
> Of course, this is all just my impression, but I've participated in
> these feelings from both the "Go 'way, I never wanted my secret out"
> and the "Move over, Grandpa" sides and this is what I've observed. I
> don't find this debate to be very productive, since the old-schoolers
> aren't going to change their minds, and the n00bs are only going to
> support the show more zealously, and possibly unfairly.
The old-schoolers want a show where you can laugh with the characters,
not laugh AT the characters. All these excuses about the realism,
relateability, Homer being a jerkass, etc., are all offshoots of this
core problem.
>Is that what you want? People supporting the newer, sucky Simpsons
because >theirpride has been challenged?
I don't care what other people want. It should be commone sense, at
least to some folks who like the Simpsons for its rep at the best
written show, to understand the cardinal rule of the show--nay ANY
show--is to have characters you care enough about so you can 'get in'
to a plot with. Otherwise, with no plot and nothing but attempted
humor, you're left with a book of Yo' Mama! jokes.
> My advice to the old-schoolers is: if you really can't stand the show,
> for God's sake stop watching it!
Here's a logical fallacy--either I must luvvvv the show and praise it
to heaven, or I must be on some crusade to bring it down. Yeah, right.
Can't I have an opinion that's somewhere in the middle?
Newsgroups have always been about expressing opinions, so if these
folk's thoughts are too desparaging, stop coming here.
> Take a break from it. Watch something
> else for a while, come back in a season and see if maybe you weren't a
> little hasty, or if you're even still interested. When X-Files got
> boring for me, I started watching Twin Peaks, which spared me the
> trauma of XF's *real* downward slide. My recommendations for Simpsons
> fans are Duckman, The Tick, The Critic, and maybe South Park.
Or, stop watching TV and get some fresh air.
> What about "Jaws Wired Shut" or "She of Little Faith" or "Half Decent
> Proposal?" I actually liked a fair number of eps from this season. It
> was, IMO, a big improvement on season 12, which has got to be the
> worst to date: tons of unfunny guest appearances, tons of random
> stupidity, lack of respect for the characters and character
> development - did I miss anything? That season 13 was better than both
> 11 and 12 should be giving everyone hope.
I agree. S13 has been a big upswing from the Scully administration.
The show has been nearly enjoyable this past season as anything from
the first seven seasons.
> Yes. Yes, they are. Why bother reiterating them and alienating the new
> fans?
If these 'new fans' have an issue with what someone else says, then
it's their problem.
Jake
Jake Lennington
> > considering Matt Groening as a false god and the show as some substitute
> religion etc etc and I think that´s a little too generalized.
>
> Yes it is. Generally, the posters argue like scholars interpreting the
> Torah. In order words...religiously!
You can argue/debate a point without worshipping it.
> > It would be very little fun if I would think "It´s only about
> money-making, it
> > has no meaning" all the time while writing such reviews and analysis, so a
> more
> > "naive" and imaginative opinion can be productive in a certain way. I hope
> you
> > will agree here.
>
> I agree that it would be fun, but productive?
> What do you wish to produce?
>
Nothing tangible has been produced, but good tv 'produces' good
discussion. (Although, I haven't been around here much the past three
years, so I'm not to sure how much good discussion takes place!)
> >
> > Maybe contrary to some of the things I say, I consider the show as nothing
> but
> > a hobby. It´s no false god, no substitute religion.
>
> As I've stated, many others do treat it as their "religion" whether they
> want to admit to it or not.
I think "Cult" is a better word. Someone once said best that "Cults"
are: "When not enough people get together to be considered a
minority."
> > I think I have enough experience in life
> > to know things, but it doesn´t stop me from being idealistic and see more
> in a
> > cartoon show than others (I even know some artists who write or do art
> just for
> > creative reasons.)
>
> I'd really like to meet one. I'd also like to see Bigfoot!
I'm one of the 1 percent you mentioned a few posts back who likes to
create for the sake of creating. My site, www.maggieanderic.com is a
for-fun site and what I do for a living has nothing to do with art. (I
own part of a restaraunt franchise)
> > I guess it´s much more easy to enjoy recent OFF episodes and
> > seasons with such a down-to-earth opinion but it can be pretty painful if
> you
> > have a more idealistic opinion about the show.
>
> If you stop having preconceived notions about things, you'll be able to see
> the world for what it truly is.
Problem is, being human negates the true ability to look at things 100
percent objectively. Anyone who watches the show for a period of time
is going to have a veiwpoint on what he/she expects when they watch a
new episode. The difference between Chris and Bob, is Chris takes the
show to heart and likes to discuss the finer points of Simpsondom
while Bob (seems) to enjoy the show, but to him it's just a show:
albeit a very good show.
Jake
Jake Lennington
> religion etc etc and I think that´s a little too generalized.
>
> Yes it is. Generally, the posters argue like scholars interpreting the
> Torah. In order words...religiously!
You can argue/debate a point without worshipping it.
> > It would be very little fun if I would think "It´s only about
> money-making, it
> > has no meaning" all the time while writing such reviews and analysis, so a
> more
> > "naive" and imaginative opinion can be productive in a certain way. I hope
> you
> > will agree here.
>
> I agree that it would be fun, but productive?
> What do you wish to produce?
>
Nothing tangible has been produced, but good tv 'produces' good
discussion. (Although, I haven't been around here much the past three
years, so I'm not to sure how much good discussion takes place!)
> >
> > Maybe contrary to some of the things I say, I consider the show as nothing
> but
> > a hobby. It´s no false god, no substitute religion.
>
> As I've stated, many others do treat it as their "religion" whether they
> want to admit to it or not.
I think "Cult" is a better word. Someone once said best that "Cults"
are: "When not enough people get together to be considered a
minority."
> > I think I have enough experience in life
> > to know things, but it doesn´t stop me from being idealistic and see more
> in a
> > cartoon show than others (I even know some artists who write or do art
> just for
> > creative reasons.)
>
> I'd really like to meet one. I'd also like to see Bigfoot!
I'm one of the 1 percent you mentioned a few posts back who likes to
create for the sake of creating. My site, www.maggieanderic.com is a
for-fun site and what I do for a living has nothing to do with art. (I
own part of a restaraunt franchise)
> > I guess it´s much more easy to enjoy recent OFF episodes and
> > seasons with such a down-to-earth opinion but it can be pretty painful if
> you
> > have a more idealistic opinion about the show.
>
> If you stop having preconceived notions about things, you'll be able to see
> the world for what it truly is.
Problem is, being human negates the true ability to look at things 100
Jake Lennington
> religion etc etc and I think that´s a little too generalized.
>
> Yes it is. Generally, the posters argue like scholars interpreting the
> Torah. In order words...religiously!
You can argue/debate a point without worshipping it.
> > It would be very little fun if I would think "It´s only about
> money-making, it
> > has no meaning" all the time while writing such reviews and analysis, so a
> more
> > "naive" and imaginative opinion can be productive in a certain way. I hope
> you
> > will agree here.
>
> I agree that it would be fun, but productive?
> What do you wish to produce?
>
Nothing tangible has been produced, but good tv 'produces' good
discussion. (Although, I haven't been around here much the past three
years, so I'm not to sure how much good discussion takes place!)
> >
> > Maybe contrary to some of the things I say, I consider the show as nothing
> but
> > a hobby. It´s no false god, no substitute religion.
>
> As I've stated, many others do treat it as their "religion" whether they
> want to admit to it or not.
I think "Cult" is a better word. Someone once said best that "Cults"
are: "When not enough people get together to be considered a
minority."
> > I think I have enough experience in life
> > to know things, but it doesn´t stop me from being idealistic and see more
> in a
> > cartoon show than others (I even know some artists who write or do art
> just for
> > creative reasons.)
>
> I'd really like to meet one. I'd also like to see Bigfoot!
I'm one of the 1 percent you mentioned a few posts back who likes to
create for the sake of creating. My site, www.maggieanderic.com is a
for-fun site and what I do for a living has nothing to do with art. (I
own part of a restaraunt franchise)
> > I guess it´s much more easy to enjoy recent OFF episodes and
> > seasons with such a down-to-earth opinion but it can be pretty painful if
> you
> > have a more idealistic opinion about the show.
>
> If you stop having preconceived notions about things, you'll be able to see
> the world for what it truly is.
Problem is, being human negates the true ability to look at things 100
Anna
> >Is that what you want? People supporting the newer, sucky Simpsons
> because >theirpride has been challenged?
>
> I don't care what other people want. It should be commone sense, at
> least to some folks who like the Simpsons for its rep at the best
> written show, to understand the cardinal rule of the show--nay ANY
> show--is to have characters you care enough about so you can 'get in'
> to a plot with. Otherwise, with no plot and nothing but attempted
> humor, you're left with a book of Yo' Mama! jokes.
I'm very impressed that you don't care about others - how bold. But as
your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote, let me break it down
for you. NewFan posts: "The Simpsons is good." OldFan posts: "You
flaming retard! The show isn't half of what it once was!" NewFan
thinks: "Rrr! I must defend the show with my life to prove I am not a
flaming retard!"
See why this isn't conducive to real debate?
> > My advice to the old-schoolers is: if you really can't stand the show,
> > for God's sake stop watching it!
>
> Here's a logical fallacy--either I must luvvvv the show and praise it
> to heaven, or I must be on some crusade to bring it down. Yeah, right.
> Can't I have an opinion that's somewhere in the middle?
Obviously you can have an opinion that's somewhere in the middle. What
you should NOT be doing is hating the show and continuing to watch it
anyway. My reasoning here is that if you spend more time complaining
about the show than enjoying it, there's no point to watching anymore
- unless you're holding out in case it gets better, hence my advice
about watching some other show.
> Newsgroups have always been about expressing opinions, so if these
> folk's thoughts are too desparaging, stop coming here.
So they get to express their opinions, but I should just leave. Your
theory is what, that anybody who disagrees with anybody else should
keep their mouth shut?
Oh, but I digress. You were talking about logical fallacies...? Or
maybe it was hypocrisy.
> Or, stop watching TV and get some fresh air.
Are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing? Sure, have some
fresh air! I'm not against it!
> If these 'new fans' have an issue with what someone else says, then
> it's their problem.
Yes, that would be why I posted. Maybe you'd like to try again, and
actually read what I've written before replying.
Anna
> I never said that I can“t stand the show any longer, I just said that it“s no
> longer what it used to be, namely excellent and complex character-related
> satire. It lost that ability when it "hit the ground" (like I said) and fell
> into the line of mainstream writing.
I'm sorry if that all came off as a rant against you (it wasn't), but
I'm still not clear as to why anyone would watch a show they
apparently no longer enjoy. I do agree that the characters should
drive the show; That's the best type of humor there is, IMO. I don't
see where the writing couldn't improve, though. Granted, in 13 years
we've learned so much about so many of the cast members there's maybe
not much left to find out, but I'm sure talented writers could pull it
off and bring back the satire.
Jake Lennington
Anna thustly responds:
> I'm very impressed that you don't care about others - how bold. But as
> your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote, let me break it down
> for you. NewFan posts: "The Simpsons is good." OldFan posts: "You
> flaming retard! The show isn't half of what it once was!" NewFan
> thinks: "Rrr! I must defend the show with my life to prove I am not a
> flaming retard!"
If you'd quit arguing from the point of trying to perpetuate a
stereotype, you would've understood what I wrote.
> Obviously you can have an opinion that's somewhere in the middle. What
> you should NOT be doing is hating the show and continuing to watch it.
Thanks. We love the conceren you've expressed, but there are people
who have reseverations about some aspects of the show--but do not HATE
it. The problem is you can't seem to tell the difference.
> My reasoning here is that if you spend more time complaining
> about the show than enjoying it, there's no point to watching anymore
> - unless you're holding out in case it gets better, hence my advice
> about watching some other show.
Wrong again. I almost gave up on the show back--you know, stopped
watching-- in 2000 when different folks were running it. When they
left, it became better.
> So they get to express their opinions, but I should just leave. Your
> theory is what, that anybody who disagrees with anybody else should
> keep their mouth shut?
> Oh, but I digress. You were talking about logical fallacies...? Or
> maybe it was hypocrisy.
My point which you missed, again, is the people who come here have an
opinion on the SHOW. You and your ilk have a "trying to be everyone's
mother" attitude on the PEOPLE who come here--which doesn't leave any
room for a real conversation and/or debate, which seem so strongly
for.
And you're calling me hypocritical?
Jake
Anna
> If you'd quit arguing from the point of trying to perpetuate a
> stereotype, you would've understood what I wrote.
You're right. My ilk and I should really stop that stereotyping.
> > My reasoning here is that if you spend more time complaining
> > about the show than enjoying it, there's no point to watching anymore
> > - unless you're holding out in case it gets better, hence my advice
> > about watching some other show.
>
> Wrong again. I almost gave up on the show back--you know, stopped
> watching-- in 2000 when different folks were running it. When they
> left, it became better.
Perhaps my messages aren't displaying correctly for you. Did you see
that whole sentence after "unless," where I explained exactly what you
just said?
> My point which you missed, again, is the people who come here have an
> opinion on the SHOW. You and your ilk have a "trying to be everyone's
> mother" attitude on the PEOPLE who come here--which doesn't leave any
> room for a real conversation and/or debate, which seem so strongly
> for.
1) I never had an issue with anyone personally, only with how and what
they write. And you are doing exactly the same thing by arguing with
me about how and what I write. 2) Who says I can't have an opinion on
the people who come here? I have an opinion on you.
Look, the point is that the way in which some people criticize the
show is unnecessarily harsh, and that is not good for debate because
it makes other people defensive. It's an observation, not a
commandment.
R H Menzel
Jake Lennington <simp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:748fff0e.02060...@posting.google.com...
> "R H Menzel" <rhme...@brainlink.com> wrote in message
news:<3d02...@news.starnetinc.com>...
>
> > > considering Matt Groening as a false god and the show as some
substitute
> > religion etc etc and I think that´s a little too generalized.
> >
> > Yes it is. Generally, the posters argue like scholars interpreting the
> > Torah. In order words...religiously!
>
> You can argue/debate a point without worshipping it.
>
> > > It would be very little fun if I would think "It´s only about
> > money-making, it
> > > has no meaning" all the time while writing such reviews and analysis,
so a
> > more
> > > "naive" and imaginative opinion can be productive in a certain way. I
hope
> > you
> > > will agree here.
> >
> > I agree that it would be fun, but productive?
> > What do you wish to produce?
> >
>
> Nothing tangible has been produced, but good tv 'produces' good
> discussion. (Although, I haven't been around here much the past three
> years, so I'm not to sure how much good discussion takes place!)
What have you contributed to the discussion? Or do you lump yourself in with
the rest of us?
>
> > >
> > > Maybe contrary to some of the things I say, I consider the show as
nothing
> > but
> > > a hobby. It´s no false god, no substitute religion.
> >
> > As I've stated, many others do treat it as their "religion" whether they
> > want to admit to it or not.
>
> I think "Cult" is a better word.
Don't people in cults worship something?
> Someone once said best that "Cults"
> are: "When not enough people get together to be considered a
> minority."
There are millions of self-proclaimed artists in the U.S. They are not a
cult nor do they qualify as a minority. The quote is cute, but vague.
>
> > > I think I have enough experience in life
> > > to know things, but it doesn´t stop me from being idealistic and see
more
> > in a
> > > cartoon show than others (I even know some artists who write or do art
> > just for
> > > creative reasons.)
> >
> > I'd really like to meet one. I'd also like to see Bigfoot!
>
> I'm one of the 1 percent you mentioned a few posts back who likes to
> create for the sake of creating. My site, www.maggieanderic.com is a
> for-fun site and what I do for a living has nothing to do with art. (I
> own part of a restaraunt franchise)
By artists I mean those who studied, practiced, worked for, and wish to make
a living at some form of art. The rest are hobbyists, albeit some with
talent. I've nursed some animals back to health. That doesn't make me a
veterinarian.
BTW, I'm adding your site to my favorites to check out at my leisure. You
may check out my site www.arts4u.org/menzel then check out the site
www.arts4u.org and check out some of the others.
>
> > > I guess it´s much more easy to enjoy recent OFF episodes and
> > > seasons with such a down-to-earth opinion but it can be pretty painful
if
> > you
> > > have a more idealistic opinion about the show.
> >
> > If you stop having preconceived notions about things, you'll be able to
see
> > the world for what it truly is.
>
> Problem is, being human negates the true ability to look at things 100
> percent objectively.
That's one of my points!!!
> Anyone who watches the show for a period of time
> is going to have a veiwpoint on what he/she expects when they watch a
> new episode. The difference between Chris and Bob, is Chris takes the
> show to heart and likes to discuss the finer points of Simpsondom
> while Bob (seems) to enjoy the show, but to him it's just a show:
> albeit a very good show.
>
Jake, don't assume anything. I get all(well, almost all) of the references,
etc. I just don't find it as deep. or as cutting edge as others find it. I
enjoy it for being well written and well produced. But deep? One can read
anything into anything, if you try hard enough. One can express opinions and
call them facts. Whatever floats one's boat, and makes one feel as if they
are special and deep!
-Bob
R H Menzel
This speaks volumes!!!!
Tell me, who are you that we should care what you think?
It should be commone sense, at
> least to some folks who like the Simpsons for its rep at the best
> written show, to understand the cardinal rule of the show--nay ANY
> show--is to have characters you care enough about so you can 'get in'
> to a plot with. Otherwise, with no plot and nothing but attempted
> humor, you're left with a book of Yo' Mama! jokes.
>
> > My advice to the old-schoolers is: if you really can't stand the show,
> > for God's sake stop watching it!
>
> Here's a logical fallacy--either I must luvvvv the show and praise it
> to heaven, or I must be on some crusade to bring it down. Yeah, right.
> Can't I have an opinion that's somewhere in the middle?
Can't others have opinions without having self-important ravers expousing
their opinions. Of course, the real reason for this ranting is not to
express opinion, but to declare one's superiority over those who are too
stupid to understand what the "Simpsons" is supposed to be. ;O)
>
> Newsgroups have always been about expressing opinions, so if these
> folk's thoughts are too desparaging, stop coming here.
> > Take a break from it. Watch something
> > else for a while, come back in a season and see if maybe you weren't a
> > little hasty, or if you're even still interested. When X-Files got
> > boring for me, I started watching Twin Peaks, which spared me the
> > trauma of XF's *real* downward slide. My recommendations for Simpsons
> > fans are Duckman, The Tick, The Critic, and maybe South Park.
>
> Or, stop watching TV and get some fresh air.
>
> > What about "Jaws Wired Shut" or "She of Little Faith" or "Half Decent
> > Proposal?" I actually liked a fair number of eps from this season. It
> > was, IMO, a big improvement on season 12, which has got to be the
> > worst to date: tons of unfunny guest appearances, tons of random
> > stupidity, lack of respect for the characters and character
> > development - did I miss anything? That season 13 was better than both
> > 11 and 12 should be giving everyone hope.
>
> I agree. S13 has been a big upswing from the Scully administration.
> The show has been nearly enjoyable this past season as anything from
> the first seven seasons.
>
> > Yes. Yes, they are. Why bother reiterating them and alienating the new
> > fans?
>
> If these 'new fans' have an issue with what someone else says, then
> it's their problem.
O-o-o! Confrontational, aren't we!? What happened to the freedom to express
one's opinion. Oh, right! You beleive in the freedom to express YOUR
opinion.
-Bob
Jake Lennington
> Jake Lennington <simp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:748fff0e.02060...@posting.google.com...
> > saintb...@yahoo.com (Anna) wrote in message
> news:<28f73cd9.02060...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I don't care what other people want.
>
> This speaks volumes!!!!
Yep!
> Tell me, who are you that we should care what you think?
I'm another person here, just like you.
> Can't others have opinions without having self-important ravers expousing
> their opinions?
Opinions, yes. Demands disguised as opinions like: "If you don't
like, stop watching it!", no, or better yet, if they choose to talk
that way, at least start each message: "I demand you...". (I
understand the irony that I'm doing the same thing in this somewhat in
this message, so don't bother pointing it out.)
> Of course, the real reason for this ranting is not to
> express opinion, but to declare one's superiority over those who are too
> stupid to understand what the "Simpsons" is supposed to be. ;O)
("Be?" You mean a show with endearing characters, which has a long
life, and be profitable?) Like I've said a few times already: if
people don't like my 'superiorty rants', TOUGH!
> O-o-o! Confrontational, aren't we!? What happened to the freedom to express
> one's opinion. Oh, right! You beleive in the freedom to express YOUR
> opinion.
Exactly. Nothing like restating the obvious to garner support for
your side!
Jake
R H Menzel
Most of the posters here believe they are arguing actual facts, not their
own personal opinions.
They dislike any observation, fact or opinion that does not jive with their
world.
If you hold up the mirror, and they do not like what they see, they'll blame
you for not using a proper mirror.
-Bob
Anna <saintb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28f73cd9.02061...@posting.google.com...
R H Menzel
Since you are apparently a very sensitive person (not to others, of course)
let me say I'm sorry that I offended you by suggesting (not demanding -
there is a difference) anything to you.
Oh, one last observation: You have a need to yell "Evo! Evo!"
-Bob
Jake Lennington
> My side!? I have a side?
Well ALL have a viewpoint (aka side)to express in this place. People
don't come here for the sake of coming here. They have opinions to
express--no matter how off-topic, or 'demanding' they choose to be,
including me. Also, having myself once been a casual fan, show
defender (then a 'hardcore, CBGesque fan'), fanfictionist, and now
back to casual fan, I can honestly say that I do not subscribe to the
bias of my choice because of ignorance concerning the opposing point
of view.
The Pattie's (Pattie: [pointing] Hey, Someone's not laughing!) LOVE to
suggest I'm such a party pooper and should 'give up on the show'. But
guess what--The notion that the Simpsons is a show that is a
completely objective thing is thus an unrealistic—albeit
pretty—picture foisted on the NG by those who believe Groenings's
creation is somehow infallible and beyond all criticism.
> Since you are apparently a very sensitive person (not to others, of course)
> let me say I'm sorry that I offended you by suggesting (not demanding -
> there is a difference) anything to you.
Thank you for your frank—and frankly derisive—feedback.
Jake
AcK!
>You must be getting paid by the word.
Is that really a reason to reply to him by quoting his entire message with a one
line reply? Ugh...
TTYL
... Okay, okay, I take it back! Unscrew you!
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
AcK!
>I. The show as anachronism
>
>When the show started in late 1989 (let´s leave the 1987 - 1989 shorts aside)
>it had something we can call enthusiasm. It wasn´t very much about money, it
>wasn´t very much about merchandise and, most important of all, it wasn´t very
>much about pleasing the masses. Of course, to a certain degree it was about
>ratings and making money, but in those days it was still a little more than
>that, it wasn´t so controlled by money and profit and ratings and merchandise
>industry.
Well, keep in my mind that the greatest 'crappy merchandising' seemed to arise
in this era - it's as if we have a rebirth of what you lament over disappearing
these days.
Note that Butterfinger gag, "even the fire doesn't want them..." I hope we get
only more and more of this.
>It was an experiment, the great TV experiment of the late 80s and early 90s, a
>cartoon show with intelligent content, "living" reality and characters and
>subversive messages. It was enthusiasm to go into prime time with such a poor
>animation quality as in the very first S1 episodes, it was the idea to rely on
>the greatness behind the animation, not on loud jokes and cool celebrities. The
>show back in the early 90s was something very special, something...how should I
>say...free-spirited.
I liked that, to an extent, though...
>The show kept its true style (or at least parts of it) for a surprisingly long
>time and it was always able to rescue the old "free spirit" into new stages of
>development, so I´ve never seen an anachronism living for so long, but finally
>it was over. The dream was over. The old anachronism of the 90s, the great TV
>experiment, had become a hilarious freakin´ funny cartoon show, the ratings
>went up, the masses were pleased. It´s IMO not really possible to define an
>exact point in time when that happened (see point II) but there was maybe some
>day when the free (but already weakened) spirit of the old days hit the ground
>like a parasailer crashing through the roof of some celebrities house - if I
>may use that suitable example.
I'm not sure if there was really a connection with the ratings - were there? If
anything, I thought they had fallen...
>But then came season 8, then season 9 and finally season 10 and one day I
>realized, that it finally had happened. The dream was over. What we have now is
>IMO the empty shell the old spirit had left when it was gone, a shell living
>from its past and from the acceptance of low-level humor, a hip icon of pop
>culture, finally no longer an anachronism and thus IMO mostly useless.
Yeah, it just creeps up on you, and then BAM!
TTYL
... 'Come on over for BBQ said Pooh as he eyed Piglet hungrily.'
Sydney Assbasket
Yeah, I hate that.
________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.
David Gaudine
Sydney Assbasket <drag...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>On Fri, 31 May 2002 19:46:53 GMT, "That Guy" <webg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You must be getting paid by the word.
>>
>>Is that really a reason to reply to him by quoting his entire message with a
>>one
>>line reply? Ugh...
>>
>>TTYL
>>
>>... Okay, okay, I take it back! Unscrew you!
>> krup...@yahoospa.com
>> remove "spa" to email
>
>Yeah, I hate that.
>
AcK!
>>>Is that really a reason to reply to him by quoting his entire message with a
>>>one
>>>line reply? Ugh...
>>>
>>>TTYL
>>>
>>>... Okay, okay, I take it back! Unscrew you!
>>> krup...@yahoospa.com
>>> remove "spa" to email
>>
>>Yeah, I hate that.
>>
>Me too.
Quick, set fire to yourselves!
And to these permanent records...
TTYL
... I think, therefore I am. (Or am I?)